[AmD-Ram®]

Just in case anyone missed it, here it is in .pdf format.

If you don't already have adobe acrobat reader installed on your PC, you can click HERE to download it for free!

The BIG mini test - Evo, Nov 2003

Be warned, to ensure legibility, the file consists of 10 hi-res pages and is 5.7MB in size!

Best wishes,

Ram

[gtshnzr]

Thanks. Looks like interesting reading. I'm printing it now.

[Fullupo]

hmmm, slightly unfiar testing i felt as certain cars have bigger wheels etc which should slow in theory, and also because they include items in the price that may not neccesarily add to the performance like the quad exausts on some of them. For me the BBR220 kit seems the only choice for those not worried about warranty. Im starting saving now, i always thought my S wasnt as quick as the figures suggest, and now i know. 7.8 to 60 is dissapointing, and also i have 18's and lots of extras which could only add to my weight.

Very interesting article though, ive been waiting ages for someone to run a proper test like that, thanks for posting

[AmD-Ram®]

Quote: Originally Posted by Fullupo

hmmm, slightly unfiar testing i felt as certain cars have bigger wheels etc which should slow in theory, and also because they include items in the price that may not neccesarily add to the performance like the quad exausts on some of them. For me the BBR220 kit seems the only choice for those not worried about warranty. Im starting saving now, i always thought my S wasnt as quick as the figures suggest, and now i know. 7.8 to 60 is dissapointing, and also i have 18's and lots of extras which could only add to my weight.

Very interesting article though, ive been waiting ages for someone to run a proper test like that, thanks for posting

The software in the AmD car was v1, we're now on v27 after all the betas!

For around GBP5,000 AmD Offer a 275BHP conversion - As I mentioned in a post earlier, we Dynoed one of out cars at just under 400BHP recently!!!

Hope this helps!

Ram

[TonyB]

400? I know that there is often a difference in how we measure hp on this side of the pond, but that is incredible! This must be with a turbo, right?

[AmD-Ram®]

Quote: Originally Posted by TonyB

400? I know that there is often a difference in how we measure hp on this side of the pond, but that is incredible! This must be with a turbo, right?

Yes - and Nitrous!

[minimc]

I know that this article's come up on several chat sites long ago, but this is the first time I'd got round to reading it. I like EVO mag and have (in the past) found it's bias to be less evident than other car mags. However this particular read gets my ire up.

If a mag's going to make a shoot out or BIG Mini test… whatever... It would seem pertinent to test cars with identical wheels & tyres. Obviously some cars are going to perform differently due to suspension and engine modifications, but this read is completely misleading! What about taking the wheels off and dyno testing via a dynapack or similar?

I'd love to see the torque values for the various cars tested. …I just can't see one car doing 0-60 in 6.5 seconds – and every other car in the 7’s … All with no more than a few ponies difference. This does not add up.

Why bother printing this skewed review at all? I guess the answer is because we sucker Mini owners will buy the mag to read about our beloved little car. Oh well... Maybe there's a magazine out there with the connections (and b-o-l-l-o-c-k-s) to perform a REAL test that compares apples with apples (albe-they modified apples).

Sheesh!

[AmD-Ram®]

Quote: Originally Posted by minimc

I know that this article's come up on several chat sites long ago, but this is the first time I'd got round to reading it.

.......

Why bother printing this skewed review at all? I guess the answer is because we sucker Mini owners will buy the mag to read about our beloved little car.

Sheesh!

So did you buy the magazine or not?

How would you have done the review with the cars supplied, two technicians, a reporter a laptop, loads of fuel, limited budget, deadline and a track?

Just curious...

Best wishes,

Ram

[minimc]

Quote: Originally Posted by AmD-Ram®

So did you buy the magazine or not?
Ram

Actually, I looked for this issue for quite a while, but the local magazine stands didn't have it. That's why I only read it now

As for me... I'd have had at least 3 techie blokes on hand. LOL

[benmcguire]

Quote: Originally Posted by AmD-Ram®

Yes - and Nitrous!

holly **** !! surely it must have a shed load of tourqe steer.

[badboyzbadboyz]

Quote: Originally Posted by minimc

I know that this article's come up on several chat sites long ago, but this is the first time I'd got round to reading it. I like EVO mag and have (in the past) found it's bias to be less evident than other car mags. However this particular read gets my ire up.

If a mag's going to make a shoot out or BIG Mini test… whatever... It would seem pertinent to test cars with identical wheels & tyres. Obviously some cars are going to perform differently due to suspension and engine modifications, but this read is completely misleading! What about taking the wheels off and dyno testing via a dynapack or similar?

I'd love to see the torque values for the various cars tested. …I just can't see one car doing 0-60 in 6.5 seconds – and every other car in the 7’s … All with no more than a few ponies difference. This does not add up.

Why bother printing this skewed review at all? I guess the answer is because we sucker Mini owners will buy the mag to read about our beloved little car. Oh well... Maybe there's a magazine out there with the connections (and b-o-l-l-o-c-k-s) to perform a REAL test that compares apples with apples (albe-they modified apples).

Sheesh!

I don't see what was so wrong with the review. Quite interesting in fact I thought. Fair enough they are using different size wheels, which is a bit stupid, but realistically that doesn't make much difference at all. I was amazed that the DIGITEC upgrade, giving 210bhp, was only about 2 secs quicker to 100 than the standard s and slower than the 197bhp JCW. Also, the Cooper Works being slower than the Cooper ?

[minimc]

Quote: Originally Posted by badboyzbadboyz

I don't see what was so wrong with the review. Quite interesting in fact I thought. Fair enough they are using different size wheels, which is a bit stupid, but realistically that doesn't make much difference at all. I was amazed that the DIGITEC upgrade, giving 210bhp, was only about 2 secs quicker to 100 than the standard s and slower than the 197bhp JCW. Also, the Cooper Works being slower than the Cooper ?

Realistically...? Realistically, you do not know of what you speak!

Ask ANYONE who's driven a stock S 16" X-lites vs. 17" S-lites. Its not that subtle.

Changing wheel to a larger or smaller diameter effectively changes gearing. Smaller = shorter gears (faster zero to 60/lower top speed). Larger = taller gearing, slower zero to 60 and higher top speed. This isn't even taking into consideration the differences in rotational weight of various wheels and or tires as diameter decreases or increases. Also as a rule both tires and wheels gain weight as diameters increase. Not to mention that tire compound & contact patch have MUCH to do with traction and consequently acceleration.

To publish various 0-60, 0-100 times of differently tuned cars (so as to identify the better performers) but not eliminate such an important & significant variable is a rather large oversight. Its not like EVO aren't familiar with the significance either

If EVO had wanted to they could have tested with different wheels & got some useful data. But as things stand this article is quite misleading.

EDIT [maybe misleading is a bit harsh]

Sorry, but I'm just really disappointed. Here, EVO had a great idea for an article which promised to be an interesting read & offer valuable data. …But in execution it turned out to be so much less, as to detract.

[TonyB]

I must concur with minimc...

I didn't have the extremely heavy 17's, yet when I changed my stock 16's to some 16" Volk CE28Ns and Yoko AVSES100s (205/45s), I not only dropped like 12 lbs per corner, but I also decreased the rolling diameter 1 inch, or about 5%. Serioulsy, next to the 15% reduction pulley, this change (tire/wheel weight reduction & smaller tire size) made a very noticable difference, especially with acceleration. It would have been nice to see such an evaluation account for this so it would be more of an apples to apples like comparison...

[sergio rollerfunk]

I scanned this page and I posted it on a different thread, but I think that this is the right one.
Like I said, and on behalf of Digi-Tec (yes...I drive a MCS with the DT210 conversion), something was wrong with the DT unit featured in EVO. It had the right stuff to get easily into the mid-high 6's (pulley, ECU, intake, exhaust...) and leave a stock MCS in the dust, but...it's even slower than a stocker. The worst 0 to 60 that I've seen on a U.S. mag is 7.5. The best, 7.0. I don't know about UK mags...but I doubt the MCS performed worst than that.
Oh...and the Digi-Tec unit featuring this german-comparo carries 17 inchers with big 215/40s, and those BBS RK aren't much lighter than the controversial stock ones. I agree that unsuspended weight makes a difference in performance, but we are talking about .1 or .2 tenths of a sec...not half sec or a full one like some people state. I have right now lighter wheels on my MINI, same size but 7 pounds less at each corner (stocks are S'Lites), and I noticed "zero" "nothing" "nada" improvement in performance.


I'm about to start a thread with the results of my first 2 runs with my new G-Tech Pro Comp performance meter, and despite the negative environment conditions my MINI has to deal with (6,100 feet altitude/2,000 meters, 91 octane crappy gas, larger 205/50 17 tires...) I was able to get 15.14@95.68 mph...with a horrendous reaction time. And my DT conversion consists in just the 15% pulley and the ECU...no exhaust, no intake...At sea-level and with the right 93 fuel I should be able to be in the mid 14's and get to 60 in 6.5...no doubt about that. Actually, my S is running as fast as a co-worker's stock Nissan 350Z, who has used my G-Tech with almost identical results. Altitude is no joke. It's a real performance killer...and I'm out of topic.

Now please...don't start throwing rocks...this is just MHO.

(notice that the DT technical data states 219hp, when it should state 210hp...)

Sergio

[badboyzbadboyz]

Quote: Originally Posted by minimc

Realistically...? Realistically, you do not know of what you speak!

Ask ANYONE who's driven a stock S 16" X-lites vs. 17" S-lites. Its not that subtle.

Changing wheel to a larger or smaller diameter effectively changes gearing. Smaller = shorter gears (faster zero to 60/lower top speed). Larger = taller gearing, slower zero to 60 and higher top speed. This isn't even taking into consideration the differences in rotational weight of various wheels and or tires as diameter decreases or increases. Also as a rule both tires and wheels gain weight as diameters increase. Not to mention that tire compound & contact patch have MUCH to do with traction and consequently acceleration.

To publish various 0-60, 0-100 times of differently tuned cars (so as to identify the better performers) but not eliminate such an important & significant variable is a rather large oversight. Its not like EVO aren't familiar with the significance either

If EVO had wanted to they could have tested with different wheels & got some useful data. But as things stand this article is quite misleading.

EDIT [maybe misleading is a bit harsh]

Sorry, but I'm just really disappointed. Here, EVO had a great idea for an article which promised to be an interesting read & offer valuable data. …But in execution it turned out to be so much less, as to detract.

I'm affraid I'll have to disagree again. Sorry if my humble opinion, as valid as anyones as I have driven the same MCS on 16's and 17's, is not as superior as your expertise. Pretty much everything, from the weight of the driver to the amount of fuel in your tank, effects top speed and 0-60 times - but in reality there is almost no noticable difference. When I drove the MCS on both wheel types I would say the 16's felt slightly faster from the line, but maybe that was in my head. I think the review from EVO gave a good idea of which upgrades are the faster ones, and unless you have driven all of them you are unable to say otherwise

[benmcguire]

i used to have a clio with 205/40r17 wheels but after a puncture put the stock 15's back on (165/50r15) and have to say it felt a fair bit faster with the stock rims. im sure it didnt knock seconds off but 0 - 60 felt quicker. i think evo should have put all the cars on stock rims as then no one could disagree at all! Im sure even the people at evo could have blagged a set of stcok rims and just changed them to each car on each run??

[minimc]

Quote: Originally Posted by badboyzbadboyz

I'm affraid I'll have to disagree again. Sorry if my humble opinion, as valid as anyones as I have driven the same MCS on 16's and 17's, is not as superior as your expertise. Pretty much everything, from the weight of the driver to the amount of fuel in your tank, effects top speed and 0-60 times - but in reality there is almost no noticable difference. When I drove the MCS on both wheel types I would say the 16's felt slightly faster from the line, but maybe that was in my head. I think the review from EVO gave a good idea of which upgrades are the faster ones, and unless you have driven all of them you are unable to say otherwise

Our perceptions of acceleration & wheel size definitely differ, and you really have no idea what cars or wheels I've driven ...nor I you.

BUT

If one were to compare two identical cars with the only differences being full tank of gas & driver weight top speed would be virtually identical. How long it took to reach top speed would be the issue. ...At higher speed aerodynamics has much more to do with limiting top speed than a 100lb differential. As for tire/wheel size, a larger diameter wheel will have a higher top speed, a smaller tire will be slightly lower.

You can disagree all you like & have your opinions but they wont change gear ratios, reality nor physics.

If you liked the article, then hey good for you! ...But data was not collected using consistent parameters = Garbage in - garbage out.

There's lots of mag's/tuners/part manufacturers who make unsubstantiated claims of performance superiority. It’s understandable as they are businesses with various interests, but you are a consumer. It’s a shame that you feel the need to go on defending & endorsing unscientific and unsubstantiated claims as factual information.

[minimc]

Quote: Originally Posted by benmcguire

i used to have a clio with 205/40r17 wheels but after a puncture put the stock 15's back on (165/50r15) and have to say it felt a fair bit faster with the stock rims. im sure it didnt knock seconds off but 0 - 60 felt quicker. i think evo should have put all the cars on stock rims as then no one could disagree at all! Im sure even the people at evo could have blagged a set of stcok rims and just changed them to each car on each run??

Actually, I was considering this too, and wondered if brake or suspension mods might have made some limitations. ...We might have seen all cars being tested on 17" or 18" wheels - just to fit the brakes! lol But at least it would have been consistent.

[badboyzbadboyz]

Quote: Originally Posted by minimc

Our perceptions of acceleration & wheel size definitely differ, and you really have no idea what cars or wheels I've driven ...nor I you.

BUT

If one were to compare two identical cars with the only differences being full tank of gas & driver weight top speed would be virtually identical. How long it took to reach top speed would be the issue. ...At higher speed aerodynamics has much more to do with limiting top speed than a 100lb differential. As for tire/wheel size, a larger diameter wheel will have a higher top speed, a smaller tire will be slightly lower.

You can disagree all you like & have your opinions but they wont change gear ratios, reality nor physics.

If you liked the article, then hey good for you! ...But data was not collected using consistent parameters = Garbage in - garbage out.

There's lots of mag's/tuners/part manufacturers who make unsubstantiated claims of performance superiority. It’s understandable as they are businesses with various interests, but you are a consumer. It’s a shame that you feel the need to go on defending & endorsing unscientific and unsubstantiated claims as factual information.

So out of interest, when you see a comparision of say a standard Honda Civic Type R's 0-60 and a standard MINI Cooper S's 0-60 do you consider that an invalid comparision because the Civic has 17"'s and the Cooper 16"'s ? In a perfect World all wheels etc would be the same but when you compare cars things like wheelsize are generally disregarded because of the fairly minimal effect they have. Somewhere on here there is a detailed thread about the effects of 17"'s over 16"'s and I think it made the car about 2mph slower at top speed, IMO thats nothing.

[TonyB]

I guess whether it is noticable by one's senses or not, is not highly important here. The elapsed times are impacted as measured by a chorograph, and that is real and objective. If one races another that is .4 of a second faster in let's say 0-60, well, I doubt his rear plates will be legible. It is significant, and while it might only be perceivable in such a relative situation (racing, for example), many perfomance nuts do what they can for every tenth...

I didn't scour this article, and with that I don't know which package was the "winner" per se. I do know that good experimental practices should have everthing else equal, ideally - of course except for what is being evaluated. This way any differences can soley be attributed to the offerings of these companies. And if this would have been done, the numbers would have differred. Would have the results? I don't know. We don't know. That is the point of contention of those who have posted their concerns over this "test."

I am not in the market for such a package. And I'd also like to add that I have no ties with any of the companies involved in this test. It would have taken but a few minutes to ensure that all cars tested had the same shoes. If we all know that effects of rotational masses, unsprung weight, and rolling diameters, then obviously they do as well...

It could have been done better, that's all.